Where Trump is Wrong on Muslim Immigration

by Selwyn Duke12/14/15
Donald Trump proved again why he’s the man the Establishment loves to hate, suggesting early last week that we ban Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” In response, the powers-that-be, fearing becoming the powers-that-were, have roundly condemned him, in one case saying he should “go to hell.” And I could fault Trump, too:

His proposal doesn’t go far enough.

We should halt all immigration, as I’ve recommended for years.

Yet in the least and as Trump suggests, Muslim immigration should be suspended immediately.

The apocryphal saying informs, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” America has become balkanized. People are now hyphenated, not assimilated; Americans are being displaced by foreign workers; we’re pressing one for English; political ethnic and racial warfare is the norm; and we’re so fractured, not merely divided, that all the Establishment can do to justify the insanity is repeat the Big Lie, “Our strength lies in our diversity,” a proposition for which there’s no proof whatsoever.

How’s that immigrationism workin’ for ya’?

“Immigrationism,” mind you, is the belief that immigration is always beneficial, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. Hope and change? Not when it comes to immigration.

In fact, despite our descent into national disunity, the Establishment insists on yet more immigration. It doesn’t matter that 1965’s Immigration Reform and Nationality Act created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. It doesn’t matter that the historical norm is to keep unassimilable foreign elements out of your land, not invite them in. Those who recommend even a temporary return to this norm must be called names. Racist! Fascist! Hitler! Immigration über alles!

And who is the radical here?

The case of Muslim immigration is particularly interesting. As I pointed out in an airtight defense of profiling, “‘Muslim’ is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile.” This is a fact. It may be an uncomfortable fact for multiculturalists, immigrationists and internationalists, but a fact doesn’t cease to be a fact because it becomes unfashionable.

Speaking of the fashion-makers and nation-breakers, in late August CNN called the 1970s “the golden age of terrorism,” pointing out that there were more terrorist acts during that decade than in the 14 years following 9/11 (of course, the 14 years following 9/10 aren’t quite as reassuring). The message was clear: there’s nothing to see here with Muslim terrorism. Move along.

Except for more than one thing. The ‘70s terrorists CNN cited — such as the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and anti-Vietnam War protesters — were never going to be anything but flashes in the ideological pan. Islam has been around, continually attended by jihad, for 1400 years. Even more to the point here, however, let’s say we knew that certain groups of foreigners shared the SLA’s or other terrorist groups’ ideology. Would it have been a good idea to let them immigrate to the U.S.? Even if the particular foreigners hadn’t yet committed violence, allowing them entry would have been criminal negligence at best on public officials’ part — treason at worst.

And, today, treason is the Establishment norm. For proposing a common-sense measure to protect the homeland, Trump (and by extension his millions of supporters) has been called “fascist.” But targeted immigration controls are nothing new in America. From 1924 until 1965, immigration was governed by the National Origins Act, which mandated that a given group of immigrants couldn’t represent a higher percentage of a year’s total immigrants than its group’s overall percentage of the U.S. population. This not only secured demographic stability and preserved nationhood, but as Pat Buchanan recently put it, ensured that ours would “remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.” Buchanan then continued, “Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism? …[And] Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?”

Note also that fascism founding father Benito Mussolini (the ideology originated in Italy) defined fascism thus: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Does this better describe Trump and his traditionalist brethren or statists who want to import people who’ll support all-encompassing government (70 to 90 percent of our new immigrants vote for socialistic Democrats upon being naturalized)? This, not to mention that Adolf Hitler was quite the fan of Islam — and that some Muslim figures have returned that affection.

As for Muslim immigration, here are some more facts:

Da’esh (ISIS) has revealed that it’s using the “refugee” program to sneak refujihadis into the West.

This is because Syria doesn’t have the necessary information databases for vetting and because in Syria, you can bribe public officials and obtain government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be.

Conclusion: terrorists are, without a doubt,intermingled among our Muslim im/migrants.

Given this, who, again, are the radicals? Trump and others who propose a common-sense national-security measure? Or those who’d do the same insane thing over and over again?

As for the bigger picture, I’m aware of no historical example of large numbers of Muslims ever assimilating into a non-Muslim culture. Moreover, studies have shown that younger Muslims in Europe are more jihadist-minded than their elders, meaning that we’re unlikely to see the first example of it anytime soon. Not surprisingly, Western European nations now have Muslim enclaves known as “no-go zones,” where the enforcement of European civil law is spotty at best. And the same lslamist mentality may be evident in the U.S., with a recent poll showing that a slim majority of Muslims prefer Sharia law to American civil law and that nearly 25 percent agree that it “is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam.”

Pat Buchanan added even more perspective, writing, “In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone? With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?”

Why, indeed, especially since there is already a “genuine problem with Muslims in Europe.” This quoted sentiment, please note, wasn’t expressed by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán or Geert Wilders, but by one Dr. Mudar Zahran. A Jordanian opposition leader, self-described “devout Muslim” and a refugee living in Europe, he called the current Muslim migrant crisis “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” in an October interview. Zahran also said of the migration, “You read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

The aforementioned are all good reasons to halt Muslim immigration. And where are the good arguments to continue it at this time?

Foreigners have no inherent right to immigrate to our country. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If in future we determine that Muslim immigration offers unparalleled benefits, it can always be resumed. But once an alien nation within your nation is established, only desperate measures can provide remedy, if the matter is remediable at all. Trump has been called an unserious candidate given to name-calling by the very people now hurling names, as they throw tantrums and react to a most serious issue in a most unserious way. They claim to not want another Fort Hood or San Bernardino, but then propose that the desired different result can be achieved by doing the same thing over and over again.

11 Responses to Where Trump is Wrong on Muslim Immigration

We should indeed do everything we can to cut down on legal immigration (at least until we assimilate those who are here and our labor markets stop stagnating, which will never happen under Plunderbund rule), especially Muslim immigration. And close down illegal immigration as much we can, permanently.

But we have 3 problems that get in the way of sound policy. For the Demagogues, all these Third World immigrants are potential (and eventually actual) voters. For the Cheap Labor Lobby and those bought by them, they keep the supply of labor growing faster than the demand, with inevitable results. And for most Republicans (if any) not bought by the CLL, the desire to “stand tall in Georgetown” leaves them without the moral courage to stand up to The Camp of the Saints.

Selwyn – Great article. Thinking things over I stand on the following: Until I can own property and freely vote in Mexico, or any other country, Illegal aliens cannot own property or vote in the US.

One of my liberal friends is truly shocked by my proposal that she go south and vote in Mexico. She claims not to see any correlation, after all “the illegals are just people who want a better life for their families.” We should make them citizen’s right away and pay them a living wage, ya-da ya-da ya-da. For her there are no illegal immigrants. And it never occurs to her that the children coming across the border might be exploited in any way.

That is one of the best arguments for Cruz. Even though most people would benefit from getting rid of the ethanol mandate, the people who care enough about it to vote are those who benefit (which is the usual pattern, and causes a great deal of harm to the economy). Note that using corn as fuel instead of food or fodder increases food prices, which is a real problem for very people. Mexico has had riots over corn prices, since they rely heavily on it (mainly for tortillas). Al Gore has much to atone for (and I wonder how John Kasich, with his much-professed concern for the poor, stands on the subject).

The problem is that a majority think multiculturalism means little more than having a few more ethnic restaurants to eat at. They don’t think there is a price to pay for changing from a country that is an offshoot of Europe to one that is made up of the ethos of poor, ignorant, and generally uncouth 3rd-worlders.

Or if they do know this, the price to pay for opposing it (being called a racist, etc.) is higher than just going along. It will be the other guy, after all, who will have Mexicans camping out in the woods behind their house.

Lest you think I’m being unkind to 3rd worlders, have you been to Walmart lately to see what the first-worlders are becoming?

—

In fact, I was in Safeway the other day and was repulsed by the general slovenliness of the people, both in front of and behind the counter. One of the check-out boys there (and he was probably in his mid-20’s) had to have been about 400 lbs…hugely obese. If I’m his boss I say something like, “Son, every man needs a job. But you need to become more presentable to the public. You need to take better care of yourself. You need to take a little pride in yourself. And I’ll help.”

I went there yesterday to order a party plate of sandwiches for a Christmas party. The deli girl showed me a book to order from. I choose the sandwiches from a picture…and then waited for 10 minutes while she tried to find the price. While waiting, I got a chance to glimpse the dirty appearance of the deli. The floor, the counters, and the uniforms of the people themselves were filthy. I told her “I’ve got some shopping to do first. You keep looking for the price.”

I never came back. And while waiting at the deli there was a mother and father with two 10-something boys with them. One of them was hacking and hacking and hacking with no concerns for others. And the mother made no attempt to either get the child out of the store or at least to have him cover his mouth. Think of what the more civilized Japanese (who were masks when they are sick) would think of such a sight.

I tried to stay as far away from that kid as possible and was very conscious of not putting my hands in my eyes, nose, or mouth, if even for an instant. The entire store seemed to cater to those who were sloppy and obese. Even one of the delivery girls there (for Coca-Cola or something) was hacking her way through the store.

No wonder our sloven culture can’t put up any barriers. It has lost pride in itself. And I’m not talking about anyone’s style of dress, the car they drive, or anything financial. I’m a salt-of-the-earth kind of guy. I don’t generally judge people on how much money they have. But even the poor can sweep their dirt floors. There used to be a general ethic of keeping up appearances, of living a civilized life.

That is quickly diminishing now as we are becoming a nations of pigs. How long will it be until the illegals want out? One wonders.

Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone, discovered in his research that community ethnic diversity leads to less social trust and cohesion. Families withdraw into themselves rather than trust those of strange backgrounds. They even cease to trust those of similar backgrounds. It should be no surprise, though, that leftists who seek to destroy everything that separates individual from State (such as family and church) would also be happy to wreck local neighborhood cohesion as well.

In case ST readers have not been watching what has been happening in Europe over the holidays, I thought I would point out the fact that on New Year’s Eve in Germany, there were hundreds and perhaps thousands of sexual assaults in major cities throughout Germany. The largest incident appears to have taken place around the main railway station in Cologne where hundreds of “Arab and North African” looking men groped and molested over a hundred women.

That the fools in the Cologne police department did not have sufficient force or will to stop this is bad enough. But just as bad is the fact that they, the German government and media tried to keep word of this from getting out.

This is one of the many nasty things which happen when a country allows in young males from countries where goats are generally the sex partner of choice. I guess a German woman is a step up.

How long will it be before Europe collapses? Don’t doubt that the Cheap Labor Lobby in Europe is strongly behind the immigration of these primitives.

The mayor even blamed the victims. After all, to politically correct multiculturalists, it’s the natives who must assimilate to the invaders, not the immigrants who must assimilate to the natives. But now that it’s come out, a few places have made reference to Rotherham. And every such incident strengthens opposition to third-world immigration.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.